Standing Committee B

[Mr. Win Griffiths in the Chair]

Sexual Offences Bill [Lords]

Clause 6 - Rape of a child under 13

Humfrey Malins: I beg to move amendment No. 133, in
clause 6, page 3, line 18, after 'if', insert 
 'as part of an assault'.

Win Griffiths: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 134, in 
clause 7, page 3, line 25, after 'if', insert 
 'as part of an assault'.
 Amendment No. 135, in 
clause 8, page 3, line 33, after 'if', insert 
 'as part of an assault'.
 Amendment No. 136, in 
clause 9, page 4, line 2, after 'if', insert 
 'as part of an assault'.

Humfrey Malins: I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins), to the Committee. I may be wrong, but this Standing Committee may be the first that he has attended as a Minister. We are delighted to see him in his place on the Front Bench and congratulate him. Our dealings with him thus far have been most cordial, and we do not doubt that they will continue in exactly the same vein.
 Clauses 6 to 9 have a great deal in common. They all relate to children under 13 and a common thread runs through each clause. I hope that I—and my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), if he makes the same error, which I do not think that he will—will be forgiven if I occasionally make a comment that could apply to more than one clause in the group. Once made, it will not be made again, so time will be saved. 
 The general proposition that is well understood by all members of the Committee is that aggressive, non-consensual, predatory sexual behaviour on the part of one person towards another is utterly to be deplored. Furthermore, our attitude of horror towards that proposition escalates as the gap in age between the parties involved widens. It is our duty as legislators to protect people, particularly from predatory sexual behaviour. The Bill is designed to modernise the law on sexual behaviour and assault and, by and large, it does that well. However, the other side of the coin is that all members of the Committee find it difficult to criminalise consensual behaviour of a sexual nature between young people who are broadly of the same 
 age. We know that young people experiment with sexual behaviour from a fairly early age. 
 Such views were well reflected in the debate in the other place. How then do we match those two different points of view in legislation? Clauses 6 to 9, but particularly clauses 6 to 8, will create very serious offences relating to people who perform sexual acts with children under 13. That makes sense to all of us when the defendant is older than the victim, but does it make sense when the defendant is the same age or much the same age as the victim? Perhaps not. 
 Let me give some examples. If a boy and girl aged 12 indulge in French kissing to which each consents, they will be committing an offence under clause 8. If a boy fondles a girl sexually over her clothes, or vice versa, both will be committing a sexual offence under clause 8, and that offence will be punishable—yes, punishable—by 14 years imprisonment. I am not being flippant, but if two 12-and-a-half-year-old boys relieve the boredom of their first year at boarding school by indulging in mutual masturbation—which has happened—a serious offence will have taken place. If, at the suggestion of a girl aged 12, a boy of the same age puts his finger into her vagina, the boy will be committing an offence punishable under clause 7 by imprisonment for life. We think that that is a preposterous proposition, for the reasons I have outlined. 
 The anomaly already exists in principle, because much of the behaviour in question is criminal under existing law. However, the position seems to be worsening, because under the Bill the maximum penalties are much increased. Under current law, some of the behaviour we are talking about would constitute indecent assault and/or indecency with children, which is currently punishable with up to 10 years imprisonment, but the Bill would make such offences punishable with 14 years imprisonment in some cases and life imprisonment in others. 
 What truly shocks us about sex with children under 13 is if there is a large age gap. Of course, we want to make it seriously punishable for an adult to perform sexual acts with a child under 13; there is no doubt of that. We also feel uneasy and unhappy about, for example, a child of 14 performing sex acts with a child of eight or 10, but we feel far less aghast at—indeed, we understand—the prospect of consensual sexual acts between children who are 11 or 12. I do not think that there is any appetite in society for criminalising that sort of behaviour. 
 What is the proper course of action? My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield will speak at some length on the various approaches that can be taken. There is the argument—I am not sure that it is right—that there should not be an age gap between the parties of more than, say, two years. If such a provision were brought into force, it would create an exemption from criminal liability in respect of consensual acts only. The child of 12 who forces attentions on an unwilling victim of the same age would still be committing a variety of offences. 
 Amendment No. 133 to clause 6 would insert: 
''as part of an assault''. 
Amendments Nos. 134, 135 and 136 are identical to it, but apply to clauses 7, 8 and 9; that is why I bring them within the scope of this debate. Amendment No. 133 is a probing amendment. The Law Society suggested it to me, and its purpose is to clarify the definition of non-consensual offences against children under 13. 
 Clause 6, like clauses 7 to 9, covers non-consensual sexual offences against under-13s, so the issue of consent is not relevant there. We understand the plain and laudable purpose of clauses 6 to 9, which is to protect children from suffering abuse. Any touching that is not consented to constitutes an assault. However, as assault is not part of the offence under the Bill as it stands, the provisions will also criminalise consensual child-on-child conduct in which both parties are under 13. Although child-on-child activity can be abusive and damaging, is it the Government's intention to have the threat of criminalisation hanging over the heads of those engaged in consensual activity? 
 The Law Society and Opposition Members understand that the Crown Prosecution Service intends to issue guidelines for prosecution. I feel distinctly uneasy about passing a draconian law that punishes offences under clauses 6 and 7 with imprisonment for life, and with imprisonment for 14 years under clause 8, and simply relying on the fact that the Government say, ''Don't worry about the law. We shall make sure that it is never enforced.'' It is not helpful to have legislation that constantly requires modification by guidelines. 
 In this instance, there is something to be said for the proposition that it is advantageous to spell out the requirement of an assault element to the offence. Of course, things would be clearer if such an element were introduced into the clause, because if the conduct that is disapproved of resulted from an assault it would become a serious offence. 
 I conclude with a few general remarks on the age of consent for heterosexual sex. In this country it is 16. Committee members will be interested to know—in fact, they probably already know—that the rules in European Union countries vary. For example, in Austria the common age of consent for males and females is 14; in Denmark, Finland and France it is 15; in Italy, on occasions, it can be 14; in Spain it is as low as 12, and in Sweden as low as 15. There are different approaches to the matter. 
 I have opened the debate with some comments of general principle on clauses 6, 7 and 8 and stressed that all of us are completely against predatory sexual behaviour. However, it is difficult for the Opposition to accept that draconian sentences for consensual sexual behaviour between youngsters should be on the statute book. More will be said about that as the debate unfolds.

Hilton Dawson: The hon. Gentleman speaks very well and with good purpose. There is much sense in what he says. However, is he happy with the introduction of the word ''assault''? Might not that leave room for the appalling kinds of
 sex offenders—people who groom or entice a child into sexual abuse—about which some Committee members heard yesterday evening in our discussion with Scotland Yard?

Humfrey Malins: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I am not entirely happy with the wording. One of the difficulties with the Bill, which was referred to in the House of Lords debates and by the Home Secretary, is that although we know what we want to achieve—I do not suppose that there is a scintilla of difference between Committee members about that—we are not certain how to achieve it. Other relevant amendments will be tabled and dealt with later. One of mine says that the activity in question must have created harassment, alarm or distress to the complainant. The hon. Gentleman says, quite rightly, that there are difficulties. I do not suggest that my amendment is a perfect solution.
 You have been kind enough to let me range a little on the issue, Mr. Griffiths. We shall return to this subject as the debate unfolds. This is one of the more important debates that we have had, or will have, on the subject. Different points will crop up under clauses 7, 8 and 9, and which there will be a certain amount of interchange, and I hope that many Committee members will voice their views on this vexed topic. That may help us reach a conclusion. 
 I have always understood that the Government acknowledge the issue and will do their best to listen during the course of the Committee stage to the propositions that are advanced. They might, if not at this stage, then on Report, seek another way of improving the Bill.

Sandra Gidley: I understand the motivation for these amendments, but they fail to achieve the stated purpose. We must not lose sight of the fact that clauses 6 to 9 deal with children under the age of 13. I have particular concerns about clause 8, which deals with sexual touching, and clause 9, which deals with inciting a child to engage in sexual activity.
 To return to clauses 6 and 7, I start from the premise that it is difficult to accept that the acts they deal with involving such a young child can ever be regarded as anything but assault. The Family Planning Association suggested amendments that appear to provide a defence of consent for a child under 13. I have problems with that because I am not sure that a 12-year-old is in any position to consent to sexual intercourse—we are talking about full sexual intercourse now, not consensual touching, or any sort of touching. The Family Planning Association must have meant well when it proposed these amendments—which I notice no hon. Member has tabled—because its job is to deal with the practical side of providing advice on contraception and sexual health to young people. However, I was slightly concerned: if the association regularly comes across the problem of 12-year-olds having sex, that is something that unfortunately we have to face, but such activities should not be condoned in any way. 
 The amendments do not help with the consensual aspects. We should consider a different approach. In fact, the amendments provide a loophole. I might not 
 have thought that prior to yesterday's briefing from the Metropolitan police. Clause 6 deals with the penetration with a penis of 
''the vagina, anus or mouth of another person''. 
There are no circumstances in which we would condone 12-year-olds engaging in that sort of sexual activity, or with the activities dealt with in clause 7. In yesterday's briefing by the Metropolitan police, I was struck by the fact that the officer opened by talking about children who are brought into abusive situations not by deceit, but because they think that what is happening in their family is normal. All children think that what happens in their family is normal. To offer a rather silly example, a friend of my daughter came to tea once and as she left she asked, ''Why don't your parents shout at each other all the time?'' She thought that it was unusual that we were not arguing. It is clear that a child might be unaware that she is being abused, because she does not know any different: for example, she might think that dad is being nice to her. She might not have any other framework within which to put what is going on. The amendments would make it impossible to bring charges in these sorts of cases. 
 Clause 8 raises a slightly different issue, because we are coming closer to criminalising what might happen naturally between young people, but again the amendments would not help. Let me describe a case of which I became aware some 30 years ago, when I was a teenager, before I had any idea that things like this happened. The victim was a four-year-old girl. Nobody knew that there was a problem until she went into her parents' bedroom one day when her father was getting changed. I have to tell it as it apparently happened. The little girl looked at her father and said, ''Why is your willy different to uncle's?'' One can imagine the cold shock and horror that must have passed through her parents. They did not panic, but gently questioned her, and it immediately became apparent that, unlike her father's, the uncle's penis had been in a state of considerable arousal when she saw it. 
 The long and short of it is that the problem was dealt with and the uncle lost his job. He was not a real uncle, but a ''friend'' uncle. The little girl looked forward to the times that he came to babysit, and there had been no awareness of any problem—the child had never said that she did not want him to come. She had been encouraged to touch the uncle in that way, yet it was not part of an assault. The amendments would not deal with that sort of situation. 
 I hope that I have made the case for the amendments being withdrawn. I appreciate the spirit in which they were tabled—we are all struggling to find a way around the problem. I am becoming increasingly concerned that the issue is dominating much of the debate. There are a lot of other good things in the Bill, and if we can come to some sensible solution or compromise, I am sure that all Committee members will find that acceptable.

Dominic Grieve: Mindful of what the hon. Lady has said and of the intervention of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), it seems to me that the amendments
 suggested by the Law Society present problems, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) acknowledged when opening the debate.
 The first problem that the amendments seem to present is that they arguably allow a loophole for paedophile activity if it could be shown that an act was an act of seduction rather than of assault. I reassure the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley), who probably does not need reassurance, that these and a host of amendments tabled this morning are designed to provoke discussion and to help us to see whether we can improve this part of the Bill. 
 There is no doubt that the Bill presents some problems. The basic problem is that although sexual activity with a child under 13 is already contrary to law, the penalty consequences are nothing like as draconian as we are about to make them. There is something stark about the maximum penalty of life imprisonment that could be imposed, when one considers that some of the activities could well be, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woking so rightly described, consensual sexual activity between two young people or children of the same age—12 and three quarters, or 12 and 11 months, for example. 
 On the face of it, unless printed guidelines are available, it will be possible for prosecutions to be mounted and for penalties ranging up to life imprisonment to be imposed. The state is taking draconian powers of sanction for a range of sexual offences in respect of which there were previously rather limited powers of punishment—although that latter fact has been the subject of considerable complaint. There are numerous examples of somebody being convicted for this type of activity, but it was consensual and not rape, and that person receiving a remarkably lenient sentence, which has excited public anger, wrath, and in the case of the tabloid press, a lot of foaming at the mouth. There is a very real difficulty. 
 Is there any way in which we can improve the position? There are two approaches: one, reflected in the amendments that we tabled to provoke the debate, asks whether we should differentiate between different types of sexual activity and whether those activities are consensual or involve an assault. If they involve an assault, most people would agree that there are few problems in classifying that as a serious matter. However, it is difficult to see the dividing line if the act is one of seduction of someone who is immature: one has to ask, as the hon. Member for Romsey said, whether consent can properly be given. 
 To make the position clear, amendments to this group of clauses, 6 to 9, are designed to provoke debate rather than to propose a solution. Another possible course of action is to consider spelling out differential penalties in the Bill, but I accept that that, too, presents difficulties. One is constantly trying to work one's mind round the different circumstances in which criminality could occur, but we will have to try to do that. 
 Straying slightly from the current group of amendments, when we reach clauses 10 to 15, which deal with child sex offences, the issue will become even 
 starker. Although the penalties are slightly different, they are similarly draconian, and people will start to feel even more uneasy if they apply to consensual activity between young people of roughly the same age. We will return to that matter later. 
 I accept that there is a basic principle, which the Committee may decide to stick to, that for a child under 13 no activity should be tolerated with anyone. If we start to introduce exceptions, we may get ourselves tangled up in knots and provide the very loopholes that we want to avoid.

Julie Morgan: I am pleased that this subject has been introduced at the beginning of this debate, because I share the view of the hon. Member for Romsey that it may be diverting us away from the important questions of how to deal with serious sexual abusers.
 Nevertheless, there is a great deal of concern among children's charities and the Family Planning Association about the proposition that any form of consensual sexual activity between under-16s should be criminalised. A provision to make it clear that that is not the intention behind the Bill might be one way to go. It is difficult to find a solution, and the proposed amendments do not provide it for some of the reasons already mentioned. Mention of assault could exclude some of the activities that we were shocked to hear about in last night's police presentation. The amendments are not correct, but I hope that the Government will come up with a form of words that makes it clear that the provisions do not apply to consensual sexual behaviour between teenagers. 
 If that does not happen, the Bill will send out a message that works against all that has been achieved in tackling teenage pregnancy and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. We need a climate of openness and education to tackle those problems, but the Bill tends to push us towards secrecy for young people under 16. Furthermore, we must accept that sexual behaviour is different from what the Committee might wish. On average, boys have their first sexual experience at 13 and girls at 14. How does that affect the clauses that deal with under-13s? We must deal with reality.

Chris Bryant: I am sympathetic to my hon. Friend's argument. When I did my own research and was presented with those statistics, I tried to ascertain what precisely is meant by ''first sexual experience''. A young person's first experience of heavy petting may be at 11 or 12, and that is not normally recorded in the statistics. Perhaps my hon. Friend has better information than I do.

Julie Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, because those are the same queries as I had. What is meant by the term?

Humfrey Malins: When the hon. Lady was talking, I was struck by the early age at which young people have their first sexual experience. We are legislating for the future. Young people nowadays reach puberty younger than they did in the past, and that trend may continue, so the hon. Lady is talking about an
 interesting area. There could be more problems as the years go by and people reach puberty at an even younger age.

Julie Morgan: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, because young people are developing far earlier and having experiences that in the past would have been reserved to a much older age group. We must take into account what is actually happening. One statistic of which I am sure we are all aware is that a third of all men and a quarter of all women say that they had sex before they were 16.
 That is the climate in which we are discussing these issues, and it is important to take all those facts into account when we consider the legislation. However much we wish that such activities did not take place at such a young age, that is what happens and we must try to get into the Bill a provision that deals with consensual activities between young people. If 13 is the average age at which boys first take part in sexual activity, I do not think that I can go along with the views of the hon. Member for Romsey that what we are discussing is always an offence if it involves someone under 13.

Hilton Dawson: I am extremely sympathetic to and accept almost entirely my hon. Friend's arguments about young people aged over 13, but is there not an important point about what clauses 6 to 8 are designed to achieve? They draw a clear distinction between children under 13 and children over 13. Is that not a vital protective element of the Bill?

Julie Morgan: It is important to distinguish between younger children and older children, but it is obvious that at the age of 13 many young people have had sexual experiences. To say that any sort of experience involving a young person under 13 constitutes criminal activity is a dangerous move.

Dominic Grieve: I am interested in the debate on these clauses and I do not want to stray too far from it, but the irony is that, apart from the penalties, there is no distinction between children under 13 and children under 16. All their activities are criminalised in exactly the same way, which is one of the most interesting aspects of the Bill.

Julie Morgan: That is a valid point. The Government have said that they will issue guidelines to the CPS and will ensure that unnecessary prosecutions do not take place. However, I wonder whether that is the right way to go about making law. It would be much better if we had something in the Bill to ensure that normal teenage activity is not criminalised. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can respond in some way that deals with these issues, because we must go on to discuss how we deal with young people who commit sexual offences and situations in which there is no consent. Those are the young people whom we need to identify and help.

John Randall: As I was listening to the Minister on the ''Today'' programme—he sounded very reasonable-—one thing occurred to me, which follows on from what the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) said. If what we are discussing is
 a criminal offence, although the guidelines will have been published and we have had assurances that it will not be taken further, is there not a danger that some youngsters will not know that the guidelines exist? The myth will then go round the schools that these activities are criminal, and young people who engage in them will think that they are in danger of the police coming around and carting them off. I wonder whether that might defeat the object, and make the issue more undercover than we intend.

Paul Goggins: We have already had an indication of the sort of debate that we will have in Committee today. I thank the hon. Member for Woking for his kind remarks at the start of the debate—it is indeed my first time on a Standing Committee, and it is an interesting and challenging one to be part of. I hope that I am able to maintain the constructive atmosphere that prevailed in the Committee on Tuesday.
 The hon. Gentleman reminded the Committee at the outset that, as we tease out the issues, what unites us is greater than that which may divide us. He said that sexual assault on children, particularly very young children, was ''abhorrent''. That is our starting point, and that unites us far more than it divides us. 
 The hon. Gentleman also made the point, which has been repeated by other hon. Members on both sides, that we will discuss a wide range of issues this morning. I will respond to some of those issues now, particularly those that relate to the current group of amendments. However, it has become clear that many other issues are involved. I will deal with the issue about consensual—what some might call harmless—sexual activity between under-16s later on, when we discuss other amendments. However, I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North and other members of the Committee that the aim of the clauses under discussion is not to criminalise ordinary developmental, fairly harmless behaviour by children. None the less, we have a duty to make the legislation robust. 
 Amendments Nos. 133 to 136 would require the activities covered by the offences in clauses 6 to 9 to have been carried out 
''as part of an assault.'' 
The hon. Member for Romsey graphically illustrated the sort of problems that such a strict interpretation would cause. There would be two consequences. First, where consent is raised as an issue—and we can anticipate that that would be in almost every case—lack of consent would need to be proved in relation to each offence. I emphasise to the hon. Member for Woking that that would apply whether the offender was under 18 or over 18. Secondly, where lack of consent could not be made out by the prosecution, any sexual activity with a child under 13 would be charged under one of the child sex offences in clauses 10 to 14. In essence, there would be no point in having a range of separate offences for children under 13. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield referred to that issue. 
 It is important that the Government and Parliament send out a clear signal through the legislation that 
 although 16 is the age of consent, we have strong views about any sort of sexual activity involving, or sexual assault on, a child under 13. We believe that that is a significant difference. If the amendments were accepted, the legislation would fall far short of the Government's commitment to enhance protection for children. 
 Let me outline the rationale that led us to define the range of child sex offences dealt with in this group of clauses. Our priority is to maximise the protection offered by the law for very young children. We want to make it clear in statute that sexual activity involving a child under the age of 13 will not be tolerated, so we adopted the policy that a child below the age of 13 is not capable of giving legally significant consent. I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Romsey on the issue. The hon. Lady referred to the presentation by the Metropolitan police that members of the Committee attended yesterday; unfortunately I was elsewhere and could not be present, but I had a similar presentation from the same unit of the Metropolitan police on Monday, so I am aware of the information that they shared. As we heard, it is important that our deliberations are rooted in the reality that they have to deal with. 
 We chose the benchmark age of 13 as it reflects the provisions of existing sexual offences legislation, whereby cases involving victims below that age trigger higher maximum sentences than those in which the victims are aged 13 or over, but under 16. We have already debated the age at which people mature and whether that age is rising, falling or staying the same. We have drawn the conclusion that as 13 is the age at which children enter their teenage years and which is recognised by society as marking a significant step towards maturity, it seems appropriate for 13 to be the age threshold below which any ostensible consent to sexual activity should not be deemed to be legally significant. Regardless of whether a child under the age of 13 may have the necessary understanding of sexual matters to give ostensible consent to sexual activity, we firmly believe that the law has a duty to protect all children from engaging in sexual activity at such an early age. 
 We are also anxious to ensure that children below that age should not have to endure detailed questioning either about their sexual understanding or about whether they gave consent to sexual activity on the specific occasion in question. The effect of the amendments would be that the under-13 child offences would apply only when the sexual activity was forced upon the child. It would follow from that that in some circumstances children under 13 could be deemed capable of consenting to such sexual activity; that is completely at odds with our position. 
 If the amendments were accepted, there would be nothing to distinguish between offences involving children under 13 as being particularly serious or deviant behaviour and it is important that the Committee, and Parliament, send the message that we do regard that as serious and deviant behaviour. In addition, in connection with proving that an assault has taken place, children under 13 would have to face cross-examination in relation to consent in court, 
 which is something that we have expressly sought to avoid. Young children should not be put through that experience. 
 The central point made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield was about maximum penalties. Without making any commitments or promises, I am happy to reflect on the matter in the light of his comments. In my view, the amendments would totally undermine our policy and weaken protection for vulnerable children under 13. For the reasons I have given, I hope that the hon. Member for Woking will withdraw the amendment.

Humfrey Malins: We have had a useful opening debate in which we have laid out some thoughts. The amendments, which I shall seek leave to withdraw, would not sort out what you and I, Mr. Griffiths, might call the consent issue. That problem remains, and we shall return to it in clauses 7 and 8.
 We should remember that clause 6 deals with rape of a child under 13, which is an extremely serious matter. Other, more forceful points will be made in respect of clauses 7 and 8, particularly about the consent issue. I am pleased that the Minister said he would reflect on the issue of maximum penalties; I am sure that he will seek to make progress on those matters between now and Report. I am sure that discussions will continue to see if there is a perfect answer to some of the problems we have placed before the Committee. 
 On behalf of my hon. Friends, I thank the Minister sincerely for his reply. To enable the debate to move on to clauses 7 and 8 and beyond, I beg to seek leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 - Assault of a child under 13 by penetration

Dominic Grieve: I beg to move amendment No. 130, in
clause 7, page 3, line 27, after 'body', insert 'other than his penis'.

Win Griffiths: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 131, in 
clause 9, page 4, line 14, after 'body', insert 'other than his penis'.

Dominic Grieve: The amendment can be dealt with briefly, as it refers to the issue of duplication of offences that arose during our sitting on Tuesday. The result of the two amendments would be to differentiate between rape and assault by penetration, which could not involve rape with the penis.
 The Minister's explanation remains valid because there is concern that there may be some, perhaps rather odd, cases where it would not be clear whether penetration had taken place with an object or by the penis. In such circumstances, as I understand it, the Government want to retain the flexibility that both counts could be put on the indictment and the jury would therefore have a choice on which to convict. If 
 the Minister will confirm my understanding of the matter, I will not press the amendments further.

Paul Goggins: In the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's conciliatory approach, I am happy to confirm his understanding of what I said. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration said in Committee on Tuesday, in cases in which the evidence clearly indicates that non-consensual penile penetration took place, we would expect a charge of rape. If there has not been penile penetration the charge would not be one of rape. In cases where there is some doubt and where, in the course of a case, it emerges that there was penile penetration, we would not want the accused to walk out of court scot-free. That is the territory and our aim is to provide clarity.

Dominic Grieve: I am grateful to the Minister. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dominic Grieve: I beg to move amendment No. 129, in
clause 7, page 3, line 28, leave out paragraph (b) and insert 
 '(b) he has neither lawful authority, nor reasonable excuse, and'.
 This, too, is a subject we touched on on Tuesday. However, I return to the matter because it concerns the issue of having to prove under clause 7 that the intentional penetration is sexual. The Minister will remember that on Tuesday I expressed reservations about that test. I suggested that in the case of penetration of the vagina or anus, it was difficult to see that the sexual motive was particularly relevant. I said that there should be a different definition that would properly exonerate someone who carried out such penetration in the course of an intimate search or because there was reasonable excuse for the penetration, for example, if a doctor was treating an unconscious patient. That is why I tabled the amendment and I still prefer my wording. As there was no opportunity for the Government to respond fully on Tuesday, because I had not tabled an alternative wording but simply proposed deleting the words ''the penetration is sexual'', perhaps we might consider it now. 
 I have received several representations, in particular from Liberty, expressing anxiety about the definition of ''sexual'' in, I believe, clause 79, to which we may return at a later stage. I am worried about what the judge will say to the jury. If something is not easy for a jury to understand mistakes will be made and cases will be overturned on appeal. I have a niggle about the quality of the drafting, and I will come back to that when we discuss clause 79.

Paul Goggins: The amendment would remove the requirement that the penetration carried out during the offence must be sexual. We must remind ourselves that we are discussing the Sexual Offences Bill and that any offences covered by it are sexual and would attract the sex offender notification requirement. The legislation cannot include offences that are not sexual.
 The existing requirement that the penetration be sexual excludes from the offence penetration of a child by doctors or parents for health care reasons. I am pleased to note that, following Tuesday's discussions, 
 there is now a degree of sophistication in the hon. Gentleman's approach. That is clear from his further amendments. However, the amendment would cover anyone who penetrates a child under the age of 13 with any part of his body or anything else without a legitimate reason, regardless of whether that penetration was sexual.

Paul Beresford: Not being legally qualified, may I seek a small clarification? Each of the subsections begins with the phrase ''a person'' and then reverts, in the paragraphs, to the word ''he''. Can I assume that the politically correct have not reached the drafting stage and that it should read ''he or she''? I use the example of Rose West.

Paul Goggins: It is good to be in non-legally-qualified company. The hon. Gentleman's point is well recognised; when drafting legislation, the word ''he'' is always used but can apply to both sexes.
 Although it may be hard to conceive of circumstances in which a court would consider penetration of such intimate organs to be anything but sexual, we cannot allow the drafting to include non-sexual assault within the scope of sexual offences legislation. It may be possible that, because of the circumstances and the purpose of the defendant, an assault by penetration was not sexual. Such assaults should not fall within the scope of a sexual offences Bill. A conviction for such an offence automatically results in registration as a sex offender and we simply could not justify sentencing or treating anyone committed of a non-sexual assault as a sex offender. 
 Alternative legislation exists to prosecute grievous bodily harm with intent, which carries a maximum life penalty—clearly a severe penalty. Any violent, non-sexual penetration of a child should be prosecuted in that way if the case warrants it. There is no reason not to list grievous bodily harm as an alternative charge on the indictment if assault of a child under the age of 13 by penetration is charged. I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield has progressed from his original amendments, and I hope that he will accept my explanation.

Dominic Grieve: I am interested to hear the Minister's response. I confess that I had not gleaned from Tuesday's debate—it is interesting that it has now emerged, although I am not suggesting that the Government concealed it—that one of the reasons for using the word ''sexual'' is to justify placing a person on the sex offenders register thereafter. I confess that that had never crossed my mind as a reason for the definition of ''sexual'' in clause 79. That may explain why clause 79 is not as happily drafted as I would like.

Paul Goggins: It may help the hon. Gentleman to know that the Government have tabled an amendment containing a new definition of ''sexual''. I hope that it will lead to greater clarity.

Dominic Grieve: I am grateful to the Minister, and I accept that that may improve matters. However, I still believe that it may be a mistake to insist on the sexual motive being proved. The jury will have to be satisfied that there was a sexual intention—whatever that may mean—behind the act.
 I agree with the Minister that in some cases it is essential to establish a sexual intention. When one is deciding whether an assault, such as when one person brushes up against another, is indecent under the old law, the sexual nature of the act becomes very important. There is general agreement on the Committee that penetration, especially with an object, of another person without their consent is a serious matter. Once it is shown that it happened and that there was no consent it is easy to say that an offence has been committed. Yet we are putting an extra hurdle before the jury of having to decide the sexual motivation before conviction can take place. 
 Defendants, as I know from experience, are very creative individuals. They quickly cotton on to all sorts of explanations that can be put forward to justify their actions. They will tell their barristers to put forward the defence that it was all an unfortunate accident and that there was no sexual motive behind it. We will get into a situation where, with a superabundance of caution, prosecutors will put non-sexual alternatives on the indictment. The difference will be that if there is no grievous bodily harm it will be a very minor matter. It may just be a common assault. It might be actual body harm. 
 As I said on Tuesday, we are making a rod to beat ourselves with quite unnecessarily. Although the idea that we could end up with a penetration of someone's anus or vagina with an object that does not have a sexual motivation is rather far fetched, we could have all sorts of odd people trotting into the witness box to argue that as their client is a eunuch who cannot get any arousal out of his activities there can be no sexual motivation. I am trying to think this one through. I just do not think that the provision is necessary. 
 The Minister suggested that the reasoning behind the provision was anxiety about the sex offenders register. However, it is time for us to be reasonably robust. Let us suppose that a repeat serial offender, who penetrated other people with objects without consent, was able to establish that because of his psychological condition he did not do so from any sexual motive. Would we not want him on the register to warn people that he was around? We would probably think that the sex offenders register would be a good place for him. Here also we are making life difficult for ourselves. I appreciate the Minister's point and I do not want to take more of the Committee's time. I will obviously ask leave to withdraw the amendment, but I hope that we will think about this because I find it an odd thing to do in view of the nature of the allegation that is being made.

Paul Goggins: We may have made a bit of a breakthrough. The hon. Gentleman may like to reflect that in such a case it would not be necessary to prove that the offender's motive was sexual. The jury could decide that the nature of the act—the penetration of the anus or the vagina—was in itself sufficient to enable it to conclude that the act was sexual. It would be the judgment of the jury on the nature of the act, rather than the intention of the offender, that would determine whether the act was sexual.

Dominic Grieve: I am grateful to the Minister, and take his point. We will have a good opportunity to
 reconsider the issue when we reach clause 79, especially once we have looked at the Government amendments to it. I was rather concerned by the clause, but I accept that that was principally on looking at the old clause 79, and not at the Government amendments to it.
 In my experience, juries are very good at answering questions, as long as they are not convoluted and bizarre. The only representations that judges have made to me about the Bill have been on occasions when they have taken me to one side at drinks parties and said, ''Have your read this thing? I am not sure how I will ever explain this to a jury in summing up.'' Of course, judges are conservative with a small ''c'', and if they are used to a particular summing up patter, they can probably get used to a new one. 
 It struck me that the ''sexual'' element in clause 79 could, when explained to a jury, easily leave them puzzled. I think that, whatever the Minister may have intended, juries would interpret it as ''a sexual motive'', because if there is not a sexual motive, how can there be a sexual act? I accept that we can return to the issue. I understand the distinction that the Minister is making—that there can be a sexual act without a sexual motive—but reading clause 79 worried me, because it gets us into esoteric distinctions as to what people understand. 
 Once juries are asked, ''Are you satisfied that this is a sexual act?'' there is a risk that they will ask themselves, ''Why am I being asked this question? Either it's obvious, or there is something that I must decide about it.'' That is where the defendant will come along with all sorts of creative explanations. Anyway, we will leave the subject until we get to clause 79. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Win Griffiths: Before I call the hon. Member for Woking to speak to clause stand part, I should say that, because of the nature of the subject, I have allowed a pretty wide-ranging debate. However, given that amendments have been tabled to clause 79, I hope that there will be no more referrals to that clause, except, perhaps, in a simple sentence. I do not want any more detail on that clause, because it is not relevant.
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Humfrey Malins: I shall be brief. I return to the principal point, which I made more than an hour ago. We know of what we disapprove, and we know that it should be made criminal, but we also instinctively know what should not be made criminal. That is commonly understood in Committee.
 Many months ago, I had the privilege to chat to Professor John Spencer, QC, of Selwyn college, Cambridge—a leading, if not the lead, academic in this and other criminal fields in Cambridge university. I advise the Minister to make contact, through his officials, with someone of that eminence to consider 
 possible drafting measures to get over the problem to which I have alluded. 
 The following problem is acute, and remains under clause 7: if a 12-year-old girl asks a boy of the same age to put his finger into her vagina, he is liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for life, despite the fact that she asked him to do it and makes no complaint. That is the beginning and the end of the story. If I am wrong, let the Minister tell me so. If any Committee member thinks that we should be happy with that proposition, let that person intervene on me now. 
 Sufficient time has passed for it to be plain that no Committee member thinks that that young boy should go to prison for life. However, that is exactly what we are saying should happen. The Minister and his officials are under a duty to observe.

Neil Gerrard: I do not disagree with the fundamental point that the hon. Gentleman makes. We are saying not that that should happen, but that it could, which is not the same thing.

Humfrey Malins: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. We are passing a law, saying, ''That is the law.'' I am not satisfied with the proposition that we should pass lots of laws and follow those with regulations saying, ''The laws are stupid, so we will not enforce them. We just like to have them on the statute book.'' I have already mentioned Professor Spencer. I shall return to what he said later, because he has more to say about other clauses.
 If we agree to the clause in its present form, it will become law. However, there is not a single Committee member who thinks that it is sensible. Someone somewhere must find a way to make an amendment—perhaps one of my later amendments—that will add something to the end of the clause to the effect that one person has caused harassment, alarm or distress to the other. We shall debate that later. We should be discussing that; otherwise, we are doing something that is utterly stupid.

Paul Goggins: On Tuesday, the hon. Gentleman described his manner of speaking as self-deprecating. His self-deprecation does not, however, conceal his strong feelings about certain issues, and I sense that he feels strongly about this one. He says that the law must be clear. Committee members are clear that we must do our best to achieve clarity through our deliberations. The clause makes it clear that the sexual penetration of the vagina or anus of a child under 13 will always amount to an assault by penetration. The question of consent will always be irrelevant. Our policy is that a child under 13 should be deemed incapable of giving legally significant consent to any form of sexual activity.
 The hon. Gentleman describes a scenario involving two 12-year-olds. He did not speculate further about the degree of innocence in that relationship, or whether one of the children might have been, perhaps for some years, the victim of abuse in the family. The individual circumstances of such an offence and of the two children caught up in it will always be a matter of deep deliberation and 
 consideration. All those circumstances will be taken into account at the point where the CPS has to decide whether to prosecute. If there were a prosecution and a finding of guilt, the question of the penalty would arise. Again, the specific circumstances would always be examined.

Humfrey Malins: That is a well made point and it shows the advantages of a Committee debate. My views remain the same, but the Minister makes a good point.

Paul Goggins: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments. Perhaps I have said enough.

Julie Kirkbride: I am grateful to the Minister for his response, but, in contrast to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking, I am more alarmed. The following possibility is raised. Let us say that a young boy was invited to insert his finger into a young girl's vagina and suppose her mother found out, was upset and wanted to pursue a prosecution. That would technically be possible under the law. There may have been no abuse in the family. These things can, after all, just happen through sheer curiosity, perhaps arising from something that the children read in a book. They may have wanted to see whether it was more interesting than it looked. There do not have to be extenuating reasons why that young man behaved in that way. He was just doing what he will want to do a lot more of when he gets a bit older, but he will have to face court proceedings, which will completely change his life. He should not be put in that position at 12 years of age, when some kids will do what kids do.

Paul Goggins: I hope that I can reassure the hon. Lady by emphasising again that the specific characteristics and circumstances of the offence and the offender will be the subject of some consideration.
 There is the world of the law, but there is also the world of good practice. Recently, I had the privilege of visiting the Aim project in Manchester, which is run by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.

Neil Gerrard: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Paul Goggins: I will, but then I hope to say something about that project.

Neil Gerrard: I want to refer to the point that the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) made, and to raise a concern of mine that runs through all our discussions on this matter. Regardless of what we might say about the CPS guidelines that we expect, it is difficult to guarantee that all Crown prosecutors will adopt a common approach. Secondly—this is the hon. Lady's point—I do not see how that would protect against an attempt to bring a private prosecution. We can be pretty certain that there will be people who regard themselves as the moral guardians of the nation and who will be only too willing to attempt a private prosecution in some circumstances.

Paul Goggins: My hon. Friend, with his vast experience, makes an interesting point, and I shall reflect on it further.
 I was going to make a point about the Aim project I visited in Manchester. In liaison with the police in 
 Greater Manchester, it has established that whenever there is the possibility of a prosecution for a sexual assault by a child on another child there is an automatic bail period during which an expert from the youth offending team, with support and training from the Aim project, is able to assess in great detail the particular circumstances of the alleged perpetrator. That helps to inform the deliberations of the CPS and, eventually, of the court. Therefore, notwithstanding the provisions that we make, good practice can prevail, and sometimes it can provide the support that the perpetrators require, which is needed every bit as much as is the action to be taken against them.

Julie Morgan: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the NSPCC project's investigations and discussions are held pre-charge, so that as many young people as possible are diverted from the custodial system?

Paul Goggins: I am happy to confirm that they are all held pre-charge. The stand-down 28-day bail period is pre-charge. This helps to inform the whole process with a more thoughtful approach, while bearing in mind that there is a need for justice and to ensure that where an offence has taken place the victim is accorded the proper respect and dignity. We must have an effective intervention with regard to such children.

Paul Beresford: I was going to raise the point that the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) raised on the back of the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove. If a mother comes across her daughter playing nurses and doctors—or whatever children of that age call it now—and is sufficiently aggrieved and upset because she cannot stand the boy concerned and so on that she goes for a private prosecution, what will the situation be?

Paul Goggins: I did say that I would reflect on the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow—and now of the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) as well—and after a little time for reflection, I am able to respond by saying this: the Director of Public Prosecutions can take over private prosecutions, and can discontinue them. After advice, it appears that this route would not open up scenarios of the type that were put to me by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and my hon. Friend.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 - Sexual assualt of a child under 13

Sandra Gidley: I beg to move amendment No. 173, in
clause 8, page 3, line 36, at end insert— 
 '( ) Conduct by a person (A) which would otherwise be an offence under subsection 1 of this section against another person (B) is not an offence under this section if— 
 (a) there is no great difference in the ages or the mental and physical maturity of the persons involved, and 
 (b) B has fully consented to all aspects of the conduct.'.

Win Griffiths: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 174, in 
clause 14, page 5, line 32, leave out subsection (1) and insert— 
 '(1) Subject to subsection 1A, a person under 18 commits an offence if he does anything which would be an offence under any of sections 10 to 13 if he were aged 18. 
 (1A) An offence is not committed if— 
 (a) there is no great difference in ages or mental or physical maturity of A and B, and 
 (b) B has fully consented to all activities which would otherwise be an offence, 
 (c) the activity was not part of an assault.'.
 Amendment No. 175, in 
clause 14, page 5, line 33, at end insert— 
 '( ) Notwithstanding subsection (1) it is a defence for offences under sections 10 to 13 and 15 in respect of a complainant who is 10 years or more but under the age of 16 where the complainant consented to the activity and A is— 
 (a) 13 years or more but under the age of 18, 
 (b) less than 2 years older than the complainant, and 
 (c) is not in a relationship of dependency.

Sandra Gidley: The amendments were tabled in an attempt to deal with a vexed question. Although we are not dealing with clause 14, I was taken with the simplicity and—dare I say it—common sense of amendment No. 11 to that clause, tabled by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre. I look forward to that debate, because there are many parallels between clause 8 and clause 14. The Liberal Democrats want to tackle the problem, but we realise that there are a number of approaches. The fact that we have supported four different amendments that purport to do the same thing does not mean that we are confused. I hope that hon. Members realise that we are genuinely attempting, in as many ways as possible, to find a solution that is acceptable to the Committee and to Ministers.
 Amendment No. 173 is an attempt to keep things relatively simple. Hon. Members who have read the briefings closely will probably have worked out that it is a variation on an amendment suggested by the Family Planning Association. We have incorporated what can be regarded as the Finnish model, because we did not want to get too bogged down in age limits and maximum differences in age. There are many differences in maturity and physique even between people of similar ages, and the permutations are endless. One can always find a combination in any age definition that does not to work. The amendment is an attempt to resolve that problem. 
 The amendment could be interpreted as condoning sexual behaviour between a 12-year-old girl and an 18-year-old male. The Committee knows from my earlier comments that I would be unhappy about that. I will freely admit that there are some 12-year-old girls who—mostly for the reason that they have suffered abuse themselves in some way—might want to try to attract an older male. My assertion is that in those cases, the test of physical maturity would come into play, so that there would be no defence for the man. One can imagine an opposite situation in which a young man who had developed an unhealthy taste for young girls would try to work around that provision. That situation would also be provided for with the ''no great difference in age'' provisions. That is our 
 preferred way of dealing with the question, but amendment No. 174 proposes an alternative method and gives more detail about age differences. We have tabled parallel amendments to clause 14, including amendment No. 175, which we are discussing now. 
 The maturity of young girls and boys varies widely during the teenage years and putting aside basic differences, the most obvious is the different age at which the hormones kick in. As someone whose family is currently suffering from teenage hormones kicking in, I am aware of those problems. Guidelines would have to be produced for the CPS but that would not present a problem to the Minister, who was on the ''Today'' programme this morning suggesting that they will be produced anyway. Any of the amendments that we are tabling would also have to be backed up with guidelines as to what is and what is not acceptable, so I accept that there is a little more to be done. 
 Amendment No. 174 provides greater age definition: under its provisions the defendant would have to be between 13 and 18 and the age difference no greater than two years. Many agencies have suggested that an age difference of three years would be much more acceptable, as that would take into account differences in physical and mental maturity. The Liberal Democrats would be prepared to consider the amendment. The two-year age difference provides a tighter framework; it is already used in countries such as Canada to fairly good effect and it provides less scope for a mature older male—I am sorry, my maths has gone to pot—to try to develop a relationship with a relatively immature female. The two-year age difference provides a little more protection. 
 I am keen to hear what the Minister will say in response. We will press amendment No. 173 to a Division because it represents a simple and manageable way to deal with the problem. We will not press amendments Nos. 174 and 175 to a Division, because the Conservatives have tabled similar amendments that will be dealt with later, and it will be useful to have a wider-ranging debate at that point.

Neil Gerrard: I was listening to the hon. Lady with a fair degree of sympathy until she said that she was going to press amendment No. 173 to a Division. We are trying to find a solution to a difficult problem and I do not see a complete solution in that amendment.

Sandra Gidley: I was minded to press it to a Division merely to see how much sympathy there was for it. If it is clear that there is no such sympathy in this Room, we might revise our opinion. However, for the record, it would be useful to see what support there is.

Neil Gerrard: The difficulty with the amendment is in the use of the phrase ''no great difference''. I have a considerable problem in seeing how that would be interpreted. One thing that has come through the debate this morning is that we are trying to resolve a problem and we need as much clarity as possible within the law. The problem with the amendment is
 the use of that phrase, particularly when the matter is complicated by the wording,
''no great difference in the ages or the mental and physical maturity'',
 meaning that there is a further issue to assess: the mental and physical maturity of two individuals. We all appreciate that one can see enormous differences between the mental and physical maturity of two 12 or 13-year-olds.

Vera Baird: Obviously it is sensible to incorporate such factors into any decision about prosecution, but are they not better dealt with pre-prosecution, in the way that the Minister outlined, rather than left to a jury to assess, which is what the amendment would require?

Neil Gerrard: That is absolutely right. The Minister and others have referred several times to guidelines. On a number of the offences in the Bill—and in any criminal prosecution, come to that—one would expect that the CPS would have guidelines that would be followed in cases where there might be issues of discretion. It would be of assistance to hon. Members, both in the Committee and in the House as a whole the Bill is discussed on Report, to have a clearer idea of what the guidelines to the CPS might comprise and what factors the CPS would expect individual prosecutors to take into account.
 Furthermore, although we have discussed guidelines to the CPS, that will not be the only body involved in such matters. What will the police do? What approach will different police forces take? I can think of one or two chief constables who took some bizarre approaches to sexual offences in the past. A few years ago, I would not have trusted a chief constable in Manchester to take an enlightened approach to such legislation. What approach the police take is important. We must bear in mind that, for a 12 or 13-year-old, the matter would not involve only the possibility of being prosecuted, but of having to deal with the police. That could be a real problem if an individual police officer did not approach the complaint in the right way. 
 It would be helpful to receive information on what guidelines might be considered, how they might be applied through the CPS and how a consistent approach might be taken by different police forces, because such problems are not easy to deal with.

Chris Bryant: I, too, have sympathy with the direction in which the hon. Member for Romsey is trying to pull us. However, I do not have much sympathy with the amendment for a similar reason to that advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, namely that the phrase
''no great difference in the ages''
 is problematic. 
 As we have gone from clauses 6 and 7 to clause 8, the problems inherent in the Bill have increased. We already know that the age at which many boys and girls have sexual experiences is 13 and 14—[Interruption.] The average age. We can be certain that many boys and girls have had sex at a younger age and we can be even more certain that sexual touching 
 of some sort or another had been happening for a considerable period before the age of 13. 
 I recognise that the Minister is trying to do everything in his power to make sure that the law does not criminalise what we consider to be the normal process of growing up, but unless we find a clearer solution to the conundrum, we will be doing precisely that. I am nervous about the Romeo and Juliet possibility. If my knowledge of English literature is correct, Juliet was coming up to her 13th birthday. The Capulets and the Montagues certainly hated each other enough to bring forward a private prosecution, if they had wanted to. Many families in my constituency hate each other just as much as the Montagues and the Capulets did. If, at any time, they thought that one of their children had been touched in a sexual manner by another child from a family that they did not like, they would be only too happy to use the law in a way that would do no favours for either of the children involved. 
 While I heard the extremely sensible arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Minister on the ''Today'' programme— 
Mr. Malins rose—

Chris Bryant: If the hon. Gentleman will let me finish my sentence, I shall give way. I listened to everything that my hon. Friend said this morning on the ''Today'' programme and I am sympathetic to the conundrum that he faces, but without having clear CPS guidelines, it would be difficult for us to go forward with full confidence in the clause.

Humfrey Malins: The hon. Gentleman reminds me of the school play in which one of my children was involved at the age of 12—I will not say which child, in case they are prosecuted. The play was ''Romeo and Juliet''. Many 12-year-olds were involved on stage, and to say that there was some sexual touching would be an understatement. I assume that the Minister or the hon. Gentleman will confirm that, guidelines apart, there would be an absolute defence if such behaviour were part of a play.

Chris Bryant: I fear that the hon. Gentleman has enticed me into a terribly difficult area. I remember playing Robin—not Christopher Robin—in ''Time and the Conways'', a play by J.B. Priestley. In one of the major scenes in the play, Robin kisses his girlfriend, whom I think is called Joan. The scene ends with the terrible line, ''Oh, Robin! Oh Joan!'' The local girls' school was invited to watch the play one night, and there were titters from the beginning to the end of the show. I was only 12 at the time. However, this is not really the moment for confessions.
 I want to make another important point: the process of deciding whether there should be a prosecution may do infinitely more harm than the event itself may have done. I am sure that there have been many thousands of occasions on which boys and girls—or, for that matter, boys and boys or girls and girls—may have touched each other with sexual intent, entirely innocently. We must ensure that they will not be put through the mill of unnecessary legislative processes, or criminalised for the rest of their lives. 
 That was intended to be a peroration, but I shall give way to the hon. Lady.

Sandra Gidley: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that amendment No. 173 decriminalises such behaviour, so the chance of there being a prosecution would diminish greatly? Such a prosecution would therefore only occur in the sort of Romeo and Juliet situation that he described earlier, and would happen extremely rarely. At least the act is being decriminalised, so that young people will not be afraid to access sexual health services, or to ask for advice.

Chris Bryant: I accept the thrust of the hon. Lady's argument, but I do not believe that the phrase
''there is no great difference in the ages''
 in paragraph (a) is sufficiently robust to stand the test of legal drafting. I am therefore happy to sympathise with the arguments that the hon. Lady advances, but I do not agree with her solution. I hope that the Minister will provide us with a better solution.

Julie Kirkbride: The hon. Gentleman's comments remind me of an incident that happened in my constituency, of which I hope the Minister will take account when he gives further thought to our discussions today. The incident occurred in the playground of a middle school and the child concerned was under the age of 12. I am not sure what sort of touching took place, or whether it was a flashing incident. The police talked to the young boy concerned, the social services got involved, and a great hoo-hah was made about the incident.
 In the circumstances, it did not help that the young boy was black, in a predominantly white village. The involvement of all the services meant that everyone knew about what had happened, and the poor boy was even more stigmatised by an incident that, five years ago, I suspect would have been approached in a very different way. He would probably have been told, ''Well, young man, you really shouldn't do this.'', his mother and head teacher would have been informed, and nothing more would have been said about it. It is bad enough that so many services got involved that he and his family felt stigmatised. It would be even more dreadful if, perhaps because of racist intent, this law were used to criminalise that young person. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind when he considers taking this provision further.

Hilton Dawson: I am much more sanguine and less worried about this clause and other clauses than some colleagues who are moving and expressing support for amendments. There is an enormous protective purpose in making a distinction between children who are under 13 and children who are over 13. In all our discussions about school plays and doctors and nurses, we must acknowledge that as far as we know a very significant proportion of sexual assaults on children are carried out by children. It is important that we deal with that.
 We are also falling into a trap into which the Home Office has fallen. I am referring to the assumption that all these issues will necessarily be sorted out by this Bill and the criminal law. We must set the issues in the context of social policy. The children's Green Paper was published on Monday. I sincerely hope that we will move to better levels of support for parents and children, much more openness and honesty about issues that are often not discussed properly, and much more availability of education and support for children on matters of sexuality and health. 
 I shall argue the same point on a slightly different tack later in respect of children over 13. I am much more sanguine than others that what we are deciding today will not lead to the dire consequences that people are predicting. I stress the importance of the distinction between under-13s and over-13s.

Win Griffiths: We have had a pretty wide-ranging debate, so I am not minded to allow a stand part debate on the clause at the end.

Annette Brooke: I had a useful visit to Finland last week. It was about the treatment of children more generally, but I met an official from the Ministry of Justice to talk about the phrase from Finland that we have introduced. We have not applied it to sexual intercourse with a child younger than 16, which Finland does. We are talking about a 15-year-old kissing a 12-year-old. I asked the official how the terms work, because that is the question being asked here, and his answer was clear: ''We trust our judges.'' He said that there had been a case involving a 30-year-old and a 14-year-old. That age gap is clear. The point probably becomes much clearer when we talk about touching. For a 15-year-old and a 12-year-old, that is totally normal behaviour. Should it reach the situation in which a judge is involved, surely we should have some trust. This is about decriminalising normal behaviour.
 Unfortunately, I did not learn enough in Finland. I shall have to make follow-up visits. The age of criminal responsibility is higher in Finland, so under-15-year-olds are not dealt with in the courts. That is really why we are having this discussion. The Bill is in a tangle because the age of criminal responsibility is wrong. We clearly have to do our best within that constraint.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Lady makes an important point, which relates to that raised by the hon. Member for Woking about the different ages of consent in Europe. The age of consent in Spain may be 12, but it does not have the same effect on the way in which children in Spain are prosecuted.

Annette Brooke: Yes. I might add that politicians in Finland voted to keep the age of consent at 16, even though officials recommended that it be lowered to 15. The background is not that of a free society; the parliamentarians apparently acted against the advice of officials.
 I am picking up on something said by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre. Given the handicap 
 of a low age of criminal responsibility, the fundamental work has to be done in the pre-prosecution stage, should it be necessary. Come what may, we need to know a lot more about how the problem will be approached. We should realise that we have a big problem, which is stopping us from finding a solution in the Bill. We have to do the best we can. 
 Amendment No. 173 tackles many of the issues about which we are concerned. It covers full consent to all aspects of the conduct, and as I said earlier it focuses on the touching issue. The touching aspect worries me: I would not have wanted one of my daughters to have felt guilty and besmirched at the age of 12 simply because she happened to be kissing someone or engaged in friendly touching. That is an awful thought. We have a big responsibility to get it right before we reach the end of the Bill. My main concern, however, is that we are operating with a huge handicap. I am pleased that the Minister is looking at the matter because those guidelines will be critical.

Humfrey Malins: Is the hon. Lady giving way, or has she concluded?

Annette Brooke: I am giving way.

Humfrey Malins: On the question of the Crown Prosecution Service and guidelines, is it not worth stressing that quite a lot of damage could be done to the child in question by having to go through a process that resulted in the CPS saying that, given the circumstances, it would not prosecute? The time leading up to the decision would be difficult, even without a prosecution.

Annette Brooke: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. As well as trying to make sensible amendments, my line of thought is that we need a pre-prosecution stage—a new system that acts like a sieve that allows innocent people to fall out of the system at an early stage. The sieve might stay in place a little longer if treatment were needed, and we could include the treatment. If we had such a hierarchy, we could sift cases out and then ensure that the terrible cases that we saw in yesterday's presentation can be tackled.

Julie Kirkbride: I understand why the hon. Lady talks about some form of sift, but I wonder whether she shares my concern. She said how upset we would feel if 12-year-olds were made to feel dirty for having done something that they thought was quite innocent, but the idea of some kind of process becoming part of their lives, and of being arraigned before a court or some other institution, fills me with horror. It is something about which we should be able to say, ''Well, little Johnny, you should not do that at the moment—later on, perhaps, but for the time being just leave her alone.'' That seems quite enough at that age.

Annette Brooke: That is what I meant about using a simple filter—I call the sift a filter. Normal behaviour must be treated quite separately, but we have to have some protection for the most awful cases. That is what we are struggling with, but the innocent will be caught up in it because of the age of criminal responsibility.

Hilton Dawson: I share the hon. Lady's views on the need to increase the age of criminal responsibility.
 Does she think that ensuring that children cannot give consent under the age of 13 would be a useful weapon to use against the Home Office in the battle to increase the age of criminal responsibility? Is she not watering that campaign tool down by trying to introduce the issue of under-13s' consent with the amendment?

Annette Brooke: There is a certain logic, and if I thought that the age of criminal responsibility were likely to be changed within the next year, I might agree with the hon. Gentleman. However, as it would take a brave Government and many years to do that, we should look for an interim solution. I commend our amendment as the interim solution.

Dominic Grieve: I have been struck by today's debate, which has been a reflection of the way that times have moved on. There has been only a tentative suggestion that one purpose of criminal law is to reinforce a social message, but for the prohibition of sexual activity for those under 13, that is exactly one background intention of past and, I suspect, current legislation. We have spoken about how bad it would be for a 12-year-old to feel that as a result of some playground activity, they had sullied themselves and left themselves open to great criticism. That is one anxiety, but the reverse is also true.
 Picking up on what my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove said, one reason for having a blanket prohibition is to enable parents to say to their children that something is not allowed and that they will just have to wait until later to do it. The Minister may say that I am wrong, but I believe that that is one intention behind the Bill. It has not been mentioned, because it has become a somewhat unfashionable concept, but it is not one that we should completely shirk. Things happen, and picking up on what the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre has just said, if they do happen, we should not make a big fuss about them. However, the truth is that human experience has suggested that it is not a particularly good idea for them to happen. Two 12-year-olds spending all their time behind the bike sheds may have other ways in which to spend their time more profitably. We know that sexual experiences stir up passions and emotions of all kinds, which young people find it difficult to handle. 
 That is why I cannot support the Liberal Democrat amendment, although I appreciate the intention behind it. I understand the thinking behind the first exception—that 
''there is no great difference in the ages or the mental and physical maturity of the persons involved''—
 but the provision is woolly. It would be an absolute nightmare to disentangle in court, and it could sanction a physical relationship between two children who had become highly sexualised for whatever reason—perhaps because they had been abused in some other context—even if the relationship were extremely counter-productive to their own interests. Only the parental sanction would be left, and it is sometimes difficult to enforce. Therefore, I am unable to support the amendment, despite appreciating the intention. 
 Once we get beyond the age of 13, we could apply different criteria. However, again picking up on the 
 comments of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre, we should just accept that there is a blanket prohibition under 13. Our children do not carry microchips that register in the police station every time that they go behind the bike sheds. We must be realistic. It is unlikely that there will be persecution of 11-year-olds for behind-the-bike-shed activities. That does not happen at present, although it could, under the laws of indecent assault, so perhaps we should not get too twitchy. However, guidelines that the public could see would be desirable.

Paul Goggins: You have been very tolerant of our consideration of the amendments, Mr. Griffiths, and I will press you for a little more forbearance. The hon. Member for Woking said that he would make some comments that went wider than the amendments. In articulating the Government's approach to the amendments, I must make some wider points, too.
 I am pleased that several hon. Members were up and about and listening to ''Today'' this morning; I do not mean to be facetious, but I hope that some had a few happy memories reawakened as they listened to one of its items. It addressed the fact that this difficult debate occurs in our deliberation of a Bill that is about ensuring that our children are properly protected, and that those who abuse them face stiff penalties. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre made a good point: we have to face the fact that many sexual assaults on children—estimates are between a quarter and a third—are committed by other children. We should not lose sight of that. The claim is that in bringing about the degree of protection provided in the Bill, we also catch young children under 16 who are engaging in what most people would regard as fairly innocent, normal growing-up behaviour. I agree with what the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) said about young children engaging in what she described as ''innocent'' behaviour being made to feel guilty. None of us would want that. I do not believe that the Bill brings that about, and I shall explain why. 
 The legal position is that that kind of consensual, low-level—as some might describe it—sexual activity is already illegal. That is our starting point. We are not introducing provisions that bring in a whole new set of circumstances. The proof of the truth of my arguments is that there are no prosecutions. However, it is important that we have the opportunity to investigate allegations because of the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre raised—the fact that, in many cases, children are sexually assaulted by other children. We have a responsibility to ensure that we have the facility to carry out those investigations. Also, in the guidance there is the concept of common sense, which ensures that we do not seek to make children feel guilty and do not criminalise them for relatively harmless and normal things. 
 I pay tribute to the tremendous efforts made since the Home Secretary issued the champagne challenge in July on Second Reading. He made it clear that he 
 would present a magnum of champagne to anyone who produced a solution to the problem. I think that it was a genuine offer, but he is a canny Yorkshireman, and perhaps he had already worked out—he is thoughtful about such matters—that there might not be an answer to it. 
 We entered into the discussions of the past couple of months in an open spirit. I pay tribute first to the children's organisations that have taken up the challenge in entirely the right spirit. They have worked together and with officials in the Home Office to come up with a solution to the tricky problems that we are discussing. I also pay tribute to the officials who have worked tirelessly and generously to find a way of changing what we are putting on the statute book so as to remove that innocent kind of behaviour. I pay tribute, too, to the hon. Members in this Room, who have, during the past couple of days, been trying to find ways of improving the legislation. Every time Committee members have tried to do that, we have had to conclude that in trying to bend it a little bit to open up the possibility of allowing such behaviour to be outside the law, we would reduce the important protection that should be maintained. 
 Any attempt to amend the clause to exclude the kind of innocent behaviour that hon. Members have described would add enormous complexity to the Bill. We cannot get away from that. People say in conversation, ''Well, we will just leave out normal, low-level sexual activity.'' It is all right to say that, but to enshrine it in legislation is a far more challenging task. We would all agree that an innocent kiss is at one end of the scale and that full sexual intercourse is at the other. There is, however, a heck of a lot of behaviour in the middle that would have to be defined clearly, so that the court and juries could understand it. There is always that degree of complexity when we consider amendments such as those that are before us. If it is complex in terms of the law, how much more complex is it in the mind of a child, whom we are expecting to make rational decisions and choices about such matters? 
 I was very taken by the comments of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. He said that we should make it clear that such things were not allowed. The age of consent has to mean something. That is important. Of course, we accept that behaviour of the innocent development type, which has been described, goes on, but to say that it can all go on—to say that it is okay, whatever the activity or age—is a different argument. Society has a responsibility to send out a message. In the light of the review of sexual offences and our various debates, we are on quite robust ground in saying that there is solid public support for 16 to be the age of consent. There is also the danger that if we reduced the significance of 16 as the age of consent, we would send a message to children about what is expected of them. It would be damaging if the message went out that we were reducing the importance of the age of consent—that there was something like a cultural expectation that now they would engage in sexual activity before they were 16. 
 An additional problem, if we accept that certain sexual activity can be permitted between consenting under-16s, is that proof would be required that such activity was consensual. At that age children are in a time of growth, adolescence and growing maturity and consensual activity is quite hard to prove. How do we prove that consensual sexual activity between a mature 15-year-old boy and an immature 13-year-old girl is truly consensual? How do we prove that a sexual relationship between two people in the same class, one of whom is trying massively to impress the other, is of a consensual type? If we define certain permissible sexual activities, we must also face the fact that their consensual nature must be dealt with. That produces many great difficulties. 
 The amendment says: 
''no great difference in the ages . . . or maturity''.
 It is impossible to work out what that might mean in practice. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow has already described that difficulty.

Annette Brooke: I am concerned about the direction of the Minister's argument. This is a difficult question, but is it right to have simpler legislation that leaves society with quite a few problems? The Minister is saying that we cannot do what the amendment says because it is so difficult, but that is not a good reason for not trying to do it or for not doing more work and putting more emphasis on it.
 We are losing sight of the fact that the problem must be dealt with. It is not enough to say that it is too difficult. I wonder whether the Minister shares the concerns of the Joint Committee on Human Rights about liabilities being imposed on children.

Paul Goggins: I assure the hon. Lady that the fact that we have not arrived at a solution is not for want of trying—I am sure that she did not mean it in that way—nor for the want of hard work by officials, representatives of voluntary organisations and others. However, we must draw legislation as tightly as we can. We discussed earlier the complexities arising from the question of whether an act is sexual. Legislation must be drawn as tightly as possible, but we must take account of the fact that, in circumstances like these where we want to make some clearly defined exceptions, it might make it complicated to implement. However, in no sense are we saying that we cannot be bothered to try a bit harder to find a solution. We have tried very hard to find a solution, but our conclusion is that such a solution is not available.

Paul Beresford: I support the Minister. We need to remember why we are here; that is why, on Second Reading, I suggested yesterday's teach-in. I quote a well-known barrister who was part of the team defending Rose West and has defended many other paedophiles, words that are supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, which is that defendants, particularly in this area, are the most devious, slippery and unpleasant people to deal with. Indeed, the barrister said that she felt that they made some of the biggest fraudsters look straight. We have to remember that when legislating, and perhaps rely on guidance.

Paul Goggins: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support, and for suggesting the police demonstration, which has informed our discussions. He has an admirable track record in this area, and the Committee will benefit enormously from it. I am grateful for his support.
 The police have made it clear to us, not least in this week's presentation, that they are far too busy trying to catch real criminals to keep diving behind the bike sheds to see whether people are behaving. In the real world of policing, that would not be a priority. We come to the question of guidance, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, but I shall deal first with the questions raised by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove about the incident in her constituency. I can understand the distress and the added complexity of the race issues in that case. I underline what I have said before; we need to reflect on the fact that the voluntary and statutory agencies can intervene in such situations. They need to be as sympathetic as possible and to put those incidents in perspective. If they are truly innocent, we can help with a little education, but if they are serious the intervention must be all the more serious. That has to be developed locally, but there are good examples of such support being provided by schools and elsewhere. 
 Finally on the matter of guidance, I offer the Committee the assurance that the guidance will be published. Clearly, as normal, it will not be published until the Bill is enacted. However, we are not acting entirely in a vacuum. Guidance already operates in relation to the sort of relatively innocent behaviour that has been mentioned today that will lead to no prosecution. The guidance says that various things should be considered, including the age and emotional maturity of the defendant, whether the sexual relationship was entered into willingly, the relationship of the parties, whether there was a breach of care or trust, whether there was an element of seduction and whether the victim encouraged the defendant. That guidance will help the prosecution to arrive at a decision as to whether it is in the public interest to bring a prosecution, and the complexity of a particular incident or relationship will always be taken into account.

Neil Gerrard: If that guidance is in the public domain, will the Minister circulate it to members of the Committee?

Paul Goggins: I am reliably informed that it is available on the internet.

Neil Gerrard: Could we be told where?

Paul Goggins: I will ensure that members of the Committee are fully informed about how to obtain that guidance. It is important that we recognise that guidance is not something that Ministers are promising from above. There is guidance already in operation that will be developed in the light of the Bill.

Vera Baird: My hon. Friend makes a strong point by exemplifying what the guidance currently contains. Is not a major problem with the amendment, which I was minded at one time to put to the vote, that if all the filtration processes failed, the issue of whether a 12-year-old consented would have to come before a
 court? One can then envisage the horrible picture of some barrister cross-examining a 12-year-old and telling her, ''You really liked it, didn't you.'' That is too awful to contemplate and it is a major problem with the amendment.

Paul Goggins: I thank my hon. and learned Friend. She underlines the importance of the arguments we advanced earlier about not wanting children under 13 to be put in a position where they are cross-examined in that way. That is why we have taken the view that we have. Finally, I confirm that the current guidance is available on the Crown Prosecution Service website.

Sandra Gidley: I accept fully what the Minister says. I must also reluctantly accept that the amendment is not perfect, but I still believe that it will probably present fewer problems than we currently have. We have been told that a large proportion of assaults on children are made by other children. Our amendment introduces the necessity for consent. I do not think there is reduced protection here either. That is important. It is also important to note that we seek to amend only this clause in a whole range of clauses that deal with under-13s. The overriding factor is the protection of the under-13s.
 The lead amendment in the group does not affect the age of consent. The amendments that start getting into age differences sometimes have that effect even though they do not do so on the statute book. Some people are unhappy with those types of amendments because they think of it as weakening the age of consent. I can understand those arguments but I contend that amendment No. 173 does not do so in the same way. 
 The clause involves only sexual touching. I am still concerned that there will be occasions on which consensual behaviour between 11-year-olds, which is not really that sexual but is more a doctors and nurses type of situation, will be problematic. I would hope to be reassured by the fact that the police are too busy to go around finding out what goes on behind the bike sheds or elsewhere. Will the Minister tell us how many under-13s have been investigated and then brought before the courts? If we could see that the numbers were low and it was not currently a problem, we might be minded to be a little more relaxed about the issue. 
 Finally, I was disappointed to hear the Minister say in response to a question from the hon. Member for Walthamstow that the guidance will not be published before the Bill is enacted. My understanding has been that the Bill would deal with different circumstances. I may not have been fully awake this morning, but I thought I heard him say that in these unusual circumstances the Government would publish the guidance before the Bill was enacted. Can the Minister clarify that? Certainly I would be happier if we had a greater idea about what we may be dealing with before Report and Third Reading. 
 As there is little support for the amendments I shall not take the Committee's time by pressing them to a Division. However, if, at a later stage, the Minister 
 could provide some reassurance about the publication of the guidelines it may help to make everyone happier about the Bill's consequences and divert some public attention from this small matter.

Paul Goggins: I cannot give the hon. Lady the figures that she requested now but every effort will be made to ensure that all members of the Committee have them as soon as possible.
 Guidance arising from a Bill when it is enacted cannot, by definition, be issued until the Bill becomes law. The process makes it impossible to produce the guidance before then. I intend to ensure that the guidance is widely known and understood, not merely by reference to the Crown Prosecution Service website but more generally. Organisations that work with children, and Members of Parliament, will know precisely what it is. The guidance will reflect my arguments that, as now, there will be no prosecutions where low-level, developmental, growing-up activities are involved. I have tried to show through the existing guidance that that is a serious promise. 
 Although I could not give the hon. Lady precise answers, I hope that she will ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Sandra Gidley: I thank the Minister for his reply. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 - Causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity

Paul Goggins: I beg to move amendment No. 43, in
clause 9, page 4, line 2, leave out '(A)'.

Win Griffiths: With this we may take Government amendments Nos. 93, 94, 95 and 96.

Paul Goggins: At long last we have arrived at a stage in our deliberations where we can adopt a slightly more relaxed mode. Hon. Members will have studied the amendments, which are a testimony to the assiduousness of officials and Ministers who spotted that they were necessary. They remove the definition of the person committing the offence as person (A), given that there is no such reference in the clause thereafter.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 - Sexual activity with a child

Annette Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 157, in
clause 10, page 4, line 19, leave out 'aged 18 or over'.

Win Griffiths: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 158, in 
clause 10, page 4, line 23, leave out 'B is under 16' and insert— 
 'A is aged 18 years or over and B is aged between 13 and 16'.
 Amendment No. 159, in 
clause 10, page 4, line 25, leave out 'B is under 13' and insert— 
 'A is under 18 years and B is more than 3 years younger than A, and A does not reasonably believe that B is less than 3 years younger than A.'.
 Amendment No. 161, in 
clause 11, page 4, line 29, leave out 'aged 18 or over'.
 Amendment No. 162, in 
clause 11, page 4, line 34, leave out 'B is under 16' and insert— 
 'A is aged 18 years or over and B is aged between 13 and 16'.
 Amendment No. 163, in 
clause 11, page 4, line 36, before 'B', insert— 
 'A is under 18 and B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over or,. 
 (iii) '.
 Amendment No. 164, in 
clause 11, page 4, line 37, after 'section' insert 
 'if aged 18 or over at the time of the offence'.
 Amendment No. 166, in 
clause 12, page 4, line 40, leave out 'aged 18 or over'.
 Amendment No. 167, in 
clause 12, page 5, line 10, After 'section' insert 
 'if aged 18 or over at the time of the offence,'.
 Amendment No. 169, in 
clause 13, page 5, line 16, leave out 'aged 18 or over'.
 Amendment No. 170, in 
clause 13, page 5, line 26, after 'section' insert 
 'if aged 18 or over at the time of the offence,'.
 New clause 4—Definition of between 13 and 16— 
'For the purposes of this Act ''aged between 13 and 16'' refers to persons aged 13, 14 or 15.'. 
New clause 5—Penetration involving adult and child— 
'(1) A person (A), aged 18 years or over, commits an offence if— 
 (a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina or anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis, or 
 (b) the activity involves penetration of A's vagina or anus or mouth with B's penis, 
 (c) and the other person (B) is aged between 13 and 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over. 
 (2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.'.
 New clause 6—Penetration involving a child and a child or a young person— 
'(1) A person (A), aged below 18 years, commits an offence if— 
 (a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina or anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis, or 
 (b) the activity involves penetration of A's vagina or anus or mouth with B's penis, 
 (c) and the other person (B) is aged below the age of 16 years and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over. 
 (2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable— 
 (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both; 
 (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years, 
 (c) in determination of the sentence, consideration shall be given to the age differential between A and B. 
 (3) Prior to sentencing, there shall be a comprehensive assessment by a multidisciplinary agency or Youth Offending Team. 
 (4) Under this clause, a person shall only be subject to notification requirements under part 2 of this Act following an assessment of the risk that he poses to the public.'.
 This is another attempt to win the champagne, and it involves many amendments. In the minute or two that we have left I shall explain the background to our approach, and go into the detail when we resume this afternoon. 
 It may seem that there are a lot of amendments, but they are designed to make clause 14 redundant; to omit that clause, and have everything clearly specified would help considerably. Our concerns result from clause 14 being coupled with other clauses. 
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.